Development agreements require legal possession or effective enjoyment for capital gains transfer; permissive possession and deferred consideration de...
Prolonged sterilisation of development rights supports capital-gains treatment, while business-income disallowances cannot govern capital-gains comput...
Additional evidence in transfer pricing dispute leads to fresh examination, while tax deductions, TDS credit, fee and refund interest require verifica...
Category II AIF pass-through taxation preserves non-business income character; investment receipts cannot be reclassified without applying recognised ...
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, it ruled that disallowance of unpaid interest u/s 43B on a loan from the World Bank, advanced by the State Government, was not valid. The Tribunal clarified that interest payable to the State Government or World Bank is not covered u/s 43B, as these entities do not fall under the definition of covered financial institutions. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. Secondly, regarding the addition on account of electricity duty u/s 43B, the Tribunal held that the duty collected by the assessee from consumers does not constitute trading receipts. As the duty is collected on behalf of the government and not levied on the assessee, section 43B does not apply. The Tribunal cited a Kerala High Court case, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support this ruling. Thus, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee on this issue as well.
The Appellate Tribunal addressed two key issues. Firstly, it ruled that disallowance of unpaid interest u/s 43B on a loan from the World Bank, advanced by the State Government, was not valid. The Tribunal clarified that interest payable to the State Government or World Bank is not covered u/s 43B, as these entities do not fall under the definition of covered financial institutions. Therefore, the disallowance was directed to be deleted. Secondly, regarding the addition on account of electricity duty u/s 43B, the Tribunal held that the duty collected by the assessee from consumers does not constitute trading receipts. As the duty is collected on behalf of the government and not levied on the assessee, section 43B does not apply. The Tribunal cited a Kerala High Court case, upheld by the Supreme Court, to support this ruling. Thus, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee on this issue as well.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4805
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
